Citation Nr: 9905860
Decision Date: 03/02/99 Archive Date: 03/11/99
DOCKET NO. 94-25 213 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Manchester, New Hampshire
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Robert V. Chisholm, Attorney
WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL
The veteran
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from August 1968 to June 1969.
This appeal came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from November 1992 and later RO decisions that denied service
connection for PTSD, hepatitis, and chronic fatigue syndrome.
In July 1997, the Board denied the claims. The veteran then
appealed to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals
(Court) and appointed Robert V. Chisholm, attorney, to
provide further representation.
In an October 1998 joint motion to the Court, the parties
requested that the July 1997 Board decision be vacated and
the case remanded for further development and readjudication.
In an October 1998 order, the Court granted the parties'
motion, returned the case to the Board for further action
with regard to the issue of entitlement to service connection
for PTSD, and dismissed the other issues.
In a January 1999 letter, the Board asked the veteran's
attorney whether he wanted to submit additional argument and
evidence. In a February 1999 letter, the attorney requested
transfer of the records to the RO in order to fulfill the
duty to assist the veteran outlined in the October 1998 Court
order.
In an August 1987 decision, the Board denied service
connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, including
a somatization disorder. In the October 1998 joint motion of
the parties, the veteran's attorney raises the issue of
whether the veteran's correspondence dated in May 1995 and
testimony at a hearing in August 1995 constitute a notice of
disagreement with the May 1995 RO rating decision that
determined their was no new and material evidence to reopen
the claim for service connection for a somatization disorder.
The issue of whether new and material evidence has been
submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for a
somatization disorder or whether a timely notice of
disagreement has been submitted with regard to the May 1995
RO rating decision that no new and material evidence has been
submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for a
somatization disorder has not been made the subject of a
statement of the case and will not be addressed by the Board.
This matter is referred to the RO for issuance of the
appropriate statement of the case. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West
1991).
REMAND
Copies of the October 1998 joint motion and Court order, and
the February 1999 letter from the attorney have been placed
in the veteran's claims folder. After review of the record
and Court instructions, it is the determination of the Board
that additional evidentiary development and adjudicative
action is required as detailed below.
In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for
the following actions:
1. The evidence shows a clear diagnosis
of PTSD. The questions now for
consideration is whether there is
credible evidence that the claimed
inservice stressor or stressors occurred
and whether there is medical evidence of
a causal nexus between current
symptomatology and the specific claimed
inservice stressor/s to support the
diagnosis of PTSD related to service. In
this regard, the RO should request from
the veteran with the assistance of his
attorney a comprehensive statement
containing as much detail as possible
regarding the stressors which he alleges
he was exposed to in service. He should
be asked to provide specific details of
the claimed stressful events during
service, such as dates, locations,
detailed information concerning any other
individuals involved in the events,
including their names, ranks, units of
assignment or any other identifying
detail. He should be asked to provide
this information within 30 days.
2. After the above development, the RO
should review the file and prepare a
summary of all the claimed inservice
stressors. This summary, along with a
copy of the veteran's DD Form 214 and DD
Form 20, and all associated documents,
should be sent to the U.S. Armed Services
Center for Research of Unit Records
(USASCRUR) at the appropriate address.
The USASCRUR should be asked to provide
any information that might corroborate
the veteran's alleged stressor or
stressors.
3. If, and only if, the RO determines
that the record establishes the existence
of a stressor or stressors, then the RO
should arrange for the veteran to undergo
VA psychiatric examinations by 2
psychiatrists who have not previously
examined him. The RO must specify for
the examiners the stressor or stressors
that has or have been determined by the
record and ask the examiners (1) whether
the veteran currently has PTSD, (2)
whether the diagnostic criteria of the
American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental Disorders, Third or Fourth
Editions, has been satisfied, and (3)
whether there is a nexus between the
veteran's PTSD and one or more of the in
service stressors found. The
psychiatrists should be informed that
they need to confer and discuss the case
with each other, and come up with one
overall conclusion. The psychiatrist
should support the conclusions by
discussing medical principles as applied
to the specific medical evidence in this
case, including the VA report of the
veteran's psychological assessment in
1995 and the reports of Sanford Gifford,
M.D., dated in 1995. In order to assist
the examiners in providing the requested
information, the claims folder must be
made available to them and reviewed prior
to the examinations.
4. After the above development, the RO
should review the claim. If the
determination remains adverse to the
veteran, an appropriate supplemental
statement of the case should be sent to
him and his attorney.
The veteran and his attorney should be afforded an
opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the
case before the file is returned to the Board.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L.
No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5101 (West Supp. 1998) (Historical and Statutory Notes).
In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part
IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all
cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court.
See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
RICHARD V. CHAMBERLAIN
Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1998).
- 5 -